Dan wrote:
But, that is totally dependant on mindset; not data. For example, the
complexity of nature was long thought to be a compelling argument for a
designer. We now realize that there is another explanation that works as well. The complex actions of human beings was long thought to be evidence of free will and self awareness; more recently we have seen why this is not necessary to explain human behavior.
Really. So given any particular situation, you can explain why a particular person did what they did?
The difference in the two is the difference in the feeling of internal justification; which is certainly not empirical evidence.
No, the difference is that I can give you de facto examples of people exercising their free will (or virtual free will, IMO). You can't prove me wrong.
What I find fascinating is the claim of things that can be tested
empirically, and that the evidence of data varies from strongly against to
very strongly against as the "rational" explanation. For example, the
idea that self-sacrificing for others is really enlightened self interest. That someone who risks his life to warn others of a fire in a building
really does so out of the calculation that the potential for his life later being saved by one of them is high enough compared to the probability of
his losing his life so that it was simply a matter of looking after
himself.
If the rescuer has a personal bond with the people in the building, enlightened self interest is a plausible explanation, especially if they are kin. However a further explanation is that the rescuer has been conditioned to act in an unselfish manner. From the time we can comprehend language we are taught that heroism and selflessness are laudable behaviors.
Let me give a personal counter example. We took a homeless young women into our house for a year. When we did it; I realized that there was the potential for tremendous risk; we didn't know her _that_ well and it was possible that she would try to blackmail me with claims that I made advances on her; that she would bring unsuitable folks in the house; use drugs; etc.
But, I asked myself if I was a real Christian or not; and took the risk.
It was a matter of me believing in the unprovable; my belief that her life was just as important as my own.
I realize to many, this would be an example of how I am irrational. But, I don't think that caring for other people is inherently irrational.
It goes back to something I posted several days ago. Humans have learned to use their intelligence to protect themselves from brute physical power. It is a successful survival mechanism. Part of this strategy was the invention of ethical guidelines. A prohibition on murder helps keep people less able to protect themselves alive. A natural extension of these ethics is selflessness.
Another example was that the present supremacy of the US was an automatic; that its supremacy proves that a system with freedoms will always win over totalitarian governments, thus validating the principals enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. But, Gautam and I have shown; without any
significant counter-argument, that there were many times when small
factors being just slightly different could have made a world of
difference.
You haven't shown anything, you've speculated. The fact that there wasn't any significant counter argument doesn't prove anything at all. Maybe no one cared enough to do the research necessary to provide a viable counter argument.
Yet, beliefs in ideas that are subject to empirical testing are undaunted in the face of contradictory > evidence.
The requires rephrasing. Beliefs in ideas that have been proven untenable when tested continue to be believed?
Doesn't the existence of a deity require almost total fabrication since
we see nothing that induces us to believe that there is a god that can not
be explained in more logical terms?
Not really. If you don't see love; instead of just evolutionarily favored
instinctive responses...then we just see things differently.
No. One can observe in a motherâs protection of her offspring why love is favored. Do you doubt that I can find a study that proves this?
that religion has evolved from primitive ways to explain things to moreDoesn't it follow that religion was invented in order to explain things that we could not otherwise understand, and doesn't the evidence showsophisticated artifices?
You mean the fact that we grow in understanding is a point against
religion? The true point of religion is not to explain observation...that has been argued for roughly 2000 years, if not longer. It is about
relationships, meaning, love, the inherent worth of people. None of these have lended themselves to scientific examination.
Bologna. I provided an example above. Prove me wrong.
Look at the atheistic (or a-religious) philosophies developed in the last 150 years. Most of them have had a rather sorry track record in providing meaning and support for human rights and the self-worth of humans.
There is Marxism; which sneers at individual rights as a bueswa
Bourgeoisie? Not that I blame you for misspelling, especially that word. I just want to insure that that's what you meant.
construct. There is strong racial nationalism, which gave us the Nazis. Its true they had a place for religion, as one of the tools of the nation, but the true
focus of the movement was the supremacy of the race/nation over the
individual.
More benign, there was existentialism, which declared the absurdity of
life. Having studied Sartre for a semester, I can certainly see where his was coming from. Then, of course, there's the modern favorite, PoMo. It
declares there is no truth, no human rights, no good, no evil, just
politics. There is objectivism which tries to claim that altruism is evil.
Finally, there is secular humanism. It is unique among these because it
actually has a good track record. It grew out of Christian humanism, with an easily traceable path through people such as Erasmus and various
Enlightenment philosophers.
It claims it does not need God; and I think it is right there. But, it is totally dependant on the existence of the Transcendental. That is to say,
without positing human rights, the value of each human, etc, there is no
humanism. This is clearest in the Social Worker code of ethics, which
clearly and deliberately posits the value of each human being.
IFAIC you just underlined my viewpoint. That religion was invented as a survival mechanism and has been very successful. SH has a good track record because it has taken the elements of the survival mechanism and stripped them of their window dressing.
IMO, you need strong evidence to _disprove_ something that appears to be true and strong evidence to _prove_ something that appears to be a fabrication.
But, by what standards do we assign "appears to be"? To me the real dividing line is the acceptance/rejection of the transcendental on faith. Once that is accepted; the arguments are basically between different theologies.
Do I need faith to believe that I canât predict what people on this list are going to say and do? Couldnât I design an experiment to test the hypothesis that the people on this list are not predictable 100% of the time?
-- Doug _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
